On Hertzberg and the Revamp of the U.S. Constitution Since its inception, the United States Constitution has been subjected to series of amendments over different time periods. Robert A. Dahl, in his book entitled How Democratic Is the American Constitution (2001), goes beyond discussing the relatively common pattern of constitutional amendment by arguing that major changes may be necessary to rescue the Constitution from its long-standing defects. Reviewing Dahl’s work through the essay “Framed Up: What the Constitution Gets Wrong,” author Hendrik Hertzberg traces the undesirable historical and political implications of the structure and content of the Constitution. Affirming Dahl’s position, Hertzberg suggests that the U.S. Constitution is a historically imperfect document with certain loopholes in its language, provisions, and direction, which allow undemocratic structures/processes and inefficiencies in government. While Hertzberg’s direct arguments are generally persuasive, the implicit suggestions of his views regarding the flaws and less favourable implications of the U.S. Constitution provide stronger support for introducing major changes into this document. As suggested earlier, it not difficult to agree with Hertzberg’s assumptions that the U.S. Constitution needs to be overhauled. Hertzberg identifies a historical ground for justifying substantial changes to the Constitution: individual Amendments were inadequate in defining the tasks and limitations of the judiciary that, in turn, may work against the interests of the minority. The author notes that although issues such as institutionalized slavery and right to suffrage were already addressed by constitutional amendments, the execution and interpretation of laws remain problematic because the Constitution does not comprehensively define “the exercise of unelected, unaccountable, unchecked,